Delhi Court June 1998 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Coller. of Customs Vs. M.C.E. Products Sales Services
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC320Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for our consideration is whether the goods imported described in the Bill of Entry as Network Analyser with Spectrum analyser NASA 1000A was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 96/91-Cus., dated 25-7-1991 as amended or Notification No. 104/90-Cus., dated 20-3-1990 as amended. Under both these notifications specified goods as prescribed in the respective tables annexed to those notifications were eligible for the concessional rate of customs duty when they were classifiable under Chapter 90, among other chapters, of the Customs Act. There is no dispute that the goods imported were classifiable under sub-heading No.9030.39 of the Customs Tariff. The Additional Collector of Customs who had adjudicated the matter, had observed that each of these two Notifications Nos. 96/91-Cus., and 104/90-Cus. only covered the items listed in those notifications and while the Spectrum Analyser was covered by Notification No. 104/90-Cus., Notific...
Canon Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT349TriDel
1. After hearing preliminary submissions of Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Counsel for the applicant the Bench felt that the Appeals themselves may be disposed of after granting waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts in disputes on the preliminary issue of non-observance of the principles of natural justice in the adjudication of the case.Accordingly, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of the disputed amount and proceed to hear the appeals themselves.2. When the stay petitions had come up for hearing on earlier occasions, the plea was taken on behalf of the appellants that the Commissioner who passed the impugned order had not heard them or given the opportunity to personal hearing to them. It was felt necessary to obtain a clarification from the Commissioner as to whether this contention was factually correct. Accordingly, the Departmental Representative was requested to obtain the report from the Commissioner in this regard. When the matter was taken up today for hearing, Shri M.Ali, learned ...
Arihant Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-1998
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT818TriDel
1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 1451-52/91, dated 30-8-1991 of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh.2. The appellants were availing of concession granted by Notification No. 53/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 in respect of input Viscose Staple Fibre. Consequent upon withdrawal of concession vide Notification No.55/89, demands were raised on the ground that differential duty was liable to be paid on the Viscose Staple Fibre in stock with the appellants. This demand was confirmed in adjudication and the impugned Order-in-Appeal also upheld the demand. The appellants have submitted that they had paid the duty at the correct rate when they purchased the goods, as goods are liable to duty at the rate prevalent at the time of their clearance. They have also not violated any of the conditions of Chapter X procedure under which they had received the goods so as to warrant demand of duty. There is no legal provision to reassess the goods in stock...
Collector of Customs Vs. Globe Links Medica
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC317Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the eligibility of the imported Volumetric Infusion Pump to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 65/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 as amended by Notification No. 123/94-Cus., dated 3-6-1994. At S. No. 116 of the table (c), the following equipment was eligible for the exemption "Small portable pumps for giving slow infusion of anti-cancer drug".The Assistant Collector of Customs denied the benefit of this notification and ordered that the duty be paid on merits. He observed as under : "The another equipment in question "NP-1500 Volumetric Infusion Pump" has been classified by the importer under CTH 9018.19 R/W Notification 123/94-Cus. SI. No. 116. The SI. No. 116 of the 123/94 reads as "small portable pumps for giving slow infusion to anti cancer drugs", on scrutinising the catalogue submitted by the party of Dai WHA Corporation Ltd. for "Model NR-1500 Volumetric Infusion Pump" it was observed that the equipment in question is...
Sunrays Engg. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT541TriDel
1. The assessees manufacture gas cylinders. The Gas Cylinder Rules, 1981 governed the manufacture of such cylinders. The rules required testing of the gas cylinders. Rule 43 provides for condemnation of cylinder which fails to pass the tests prescribed. This testing can be destructive rendering unfit for use the cylinders subjected to destructive testing. Such destructive testing is also undertaken for qualifying under ISI standards. On certain cylinders, so destroyed, duty was paid by the assessees, who subsequently, applied for refund.It was the claim of the assessees that such cylinders before testing were semi-finished and were not liable to duty. The Assistant Collector held that the goods were fully manufactured inasmuch as they were recorded in the RG 1 registers. He rejected the refund claim. The Collector, following the same line of reasoning upheld the denial resulting in the present appeal before me.2. Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate relies upon the Tribunal judgment in the...
Rajinder Kumar Somani Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT111TriDel
1. The Service Tax was introduced w.e.f. 1-7-1994. Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 requires registration of persons responsible for collecting service tax. The appellant, being a share broker, was so required to be registered. The appellant was registered as a stock broker on 17-12-1992. As per U.P. Stock Exchange Association Ltd. certificate dated 17-4-1997, till that date he had not conducted any business. The appellant got himself registered under Section 69 on 5-1-1995. He, thereafter, submitted quarterly returns, as required under Section 70 of the said Act. All these returns showed "nil tax collected". Five show cause notices were issued on 14-2-1996 alleging that the returns for the quarters ending September, 94 to September, 95 were filed late and that penalty was imposable for such delay. The Assistant Commissioner used his powers under Section 80 of the Act and imposed a total penalty of Rs. 20,000.00 as against the permissible imposable quantum of penalty of Rs. 36,000....
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Tirupati Textiles
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1998
Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT162TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for our consideration is whether the respondents, M/s. Tirupati Textiles, Kanpur, were eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 230/77-C.E., dated 15-7-1977.2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents, M/s. Tirupati Textiles. The notice for hearing has been received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks "NOT KNOWN".At the matter is very old in which the memorandum dropping the proceedings against the respondents was issued in the year 1987, we are proceedings to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri R.S.Sangia, JDR.3. We have gone through the facts on record. Notification No.130/82-C.E. exempted cotton fabrics processed without the aid of power or steam from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon except in the case of bleaching done with the aid of machine. The respondents were a powerloom unit. They were having a baby boiler which they claimed was used for scour...
Collector of Customs Vs. Chemilab Corpn.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC322Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the classification of the imported certified reference materials for spectrometers (accessories for spectrometers). On examination, the goods were found to be metal mineral pieces in the shape of discs, bars and blocks. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, had held that the goods in question were classifiable under sub-heading No. 9027.30 of the customs tariff with the benefit of exemption Notification No.79/93-Cus.2. In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue had pleaded that in an earlier case of the same importer and identical goods, an appeal had been filed with the Tribunal. The Appeal No. being C/429/92-B2.3. When the matter was called on 2-6-1998, no one appeared for the respondents, M/s. Chemilab Corporation, Calcutta.5. We find that Appeal No. C/429/92-B2 came before the Tribunal on 27-10-1997 and under Final Order No. C/2135/97-B2, dated 27-10-1997, 1998 (100) E.L.T. 395 (T), it was held that there was no merit ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shree Pipes Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC9Tri(Delhi)
1. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the issue involved in these two appeals is the includibility of the testing charges paid by the manufacturer, (appellant) to DGS & D for additional tests carried out on pipes manufactured by respondents to arrive at their assessable value. It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the same issue has been decided by the Tribunal in respondent's own case vide the decision reported in 462 [1992 (59) E.L.T. 462 (Tribunal)]. This decision, on appeal by the department, was upheld by the Supreme Court vide 1992 A63 [1992 (62) E.L.T. A51]. In view of this it was pleaded by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the department's appeal be dismissed.2. Supporting the grounds taken in the appeal by the department; Shri M. Ali, learned departmental representative referred to the contrary decision on inspection charges paid to outside agency which was decided in department's favour by the Tribuna...
Akg Acoustics Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT700TriDel
1. The stay petition has been filed in connection with the appeal filed against the Order 51/97, dated 24-12-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IE in terms of which he had demanded Central Excise duty of Rs. 25,84,483 and imposed an equal amount as penalty under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act. In addition penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was also imposed by him under Rule 173Q. The stay petition seeks waiver of pre-deposit of this amount for the hearing of the appeal.Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, learned Counsel for the appellant states mat the demand of duty has been raised in the impugned order after taking the value of capsules manufactured by the appellant and supplied to a Vendor, "Versat Electronics" with whom appellant had entered into an agreement for supply of capsules to be used in manufacture of microphones to be sold under the brand name of the appellant. The price at which such capsules were supplied to Versat was around Rs. 55/- per piece as against the much h...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »